c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net said:
> If this is the case then every time we run into a form like TON/TWN or
> -ON/-WN as a suffix or any other case where the O/W distinction has
> Emic significance in the written language, then we probably need to do
> some textual criticism because we would know that this distinction
> didn't exist in the spoken language and if it didn't exist in the
> spoke language then those scribes who were being dictated two (to,
> too) would be likely to get it wrong.

We wouldn't necessarily have to do TC if we were fluent in the language. For
example, if I write "too wrongs make a write" you know I've misspelled. Why?
because you are fluent in the language. In other words, there are contextual
clues which give the listener (reader) a clue--'wrongs' is plural, 'write' is
a verb and has an article here.

The question of how one obtains fluency remains. Does one obtain fluency more
efficiently by adhering to phonological distinctions or is it better to
jettison them? Would removal of the distinctions force me to "hear" in terms
of the context, or would it test me beyond what I am able to bear? I'm not
sure the understanding of Greek has progressed far enough to toss some
phonemes; we're still hashing out what hO means.

Just a little Greek stepping out into thin air--at least the Molotov doesn't
burn so brightly out here. Anyway, hey Clay, why don't you toss in an
exploding can of whipped cream instead of the flammable ones?
--
Mike Sangrey
mike@sojurn.lns.pa.us
Landisburg, Pa.
There is no 'do' in faith, everywhere present within it is 'done'.